There is no corruption in Singapore...

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Minister K Shanmugam transfers Astrid Hill GCB to UBS Trustees for S$88 Million following Ridout Road controversy​

In August 2023, Minister K Shanmugam transferred ownership of his Good Class Bungalow at 6 Astrid Hill for S$88 million. This transfer followed shortly after his parliamentary address, where he addressed questions about his rental of the state-owned Ridout Road property.

12 September 2024
By The Online Citizen

In August 2023, records from the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) revealed that Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, transferred ownership of his Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at 6 Astrid Hill to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd, for a staggering S$88,000,000.
UBS Trustees, acting as a trustee for The Jasmine Villa Settlement, is a trust company licensed under the Trust Companies Act 2005.
The transaction was facilitated by Ms Ho Sheau Farn on behalf of UBS Trustees and Mr Ho Kin San representing Mr Shanmugam, both lawyers from Allen & Gledhill, the law firm where Mr Shanmugam previously practised.
The property, spanning 3,170.7 square meters, was originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in December 2003 for S$7,950,000, reflecting a significant increase in value over two decades. Located in District 10, which is commonly associated with Singapore’s most affluent residential estates, the property’s value aligns with the area’s reputation for high-end luxury homes and prime real estate.

S$150 Million Total Cost for UBS Trustees Property Transfer​

The transfer of the property valued at S$88,000,000 to UBS Trustees would involve significant stamp duties. Based on current buyer’s stamp duty (BSD) rates, the BSD alone amounts to S$5,219,600.
Additionally, given the 65% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) applicable for such transactions, UBS Trustees would have to pay an additional S$57,200,000. In total, the transfer would require UBS Trustees to pay a staggering S$150,419,600, including the property price, BSD, and ABSD.
However, UBS Trustees may also be eligible to seek a remission of the 65% additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) under certain conditions.
If the property is held in trust for identifiable individual beneficiaries, part or all of the ABSD (Trust) paid could be refunded. The amount refunded would depend on the difference between the 65% ABSD (Trust) paid and the ABSD applicable based on the highest profile of the individual beneficiaries.
To qualify for this remission, the application must be submitted within six months of the transfer’s execution, and the beneficiaries must meet strict criteria.
For instance, beneficiaries must be explicitly named in the declaration of trust and must have irrevocable beneficial ownership of the property. The remission process does not apply to individuals with contingent or discretionary interests, or those entitled only to income from the property.
It is unclear whether UBS Trustees applied for or was granted any remission of the 65% ABSD under the outlined conditions.
Despite the high-value transaction, the transfer between Mr Shanmugam and UBS Trustees did not appear in the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s (URA) Private Residential Property Transactions database and was not reported by property market monitors, possibly due to the nature of the transaction involving a transfer to a trust.
Such trust arrangements are commonly used for asset management and estate planning purposes, though they can raise questions about the tax implications of transferring high-value properties through these structures.
According to available records, the mortgage on the property was fully paid off by Mr Shanmugam by the end of 2008. Notably, no mortgage was taken by UBS Trustees following the transfer, which suggests that the payment for the property may have been made in cash.

Sale of GCB following explanation by Minister of his Ridout Road rental​

This transfer came just weeks after Mr Shanmugam’s ministerial statement in July 2023, where he addressed concerns raised by Members of Parliament (MPs) regarding his rental of the state-owned property at 26 Ridout Road, a black-and-white colonial bungalow leased from the SLA.
MPs questioned his decision to rent the property, seeking details about the rental price, the size of the land, and any potential conflicts of interest, particularly as Mr Shanmugam, in his capacity as Minister for Law, oversees the SLA, which manages these properties.
In his statement, Mr Shanmugam explained that as he approached his 60s in 2016, he reviewed his finances and realized that too much of his savings were tied up in his family home. As a result, he put the property on the market and moved into a rental home.
“I did not consider selling my own home because of financial need,” he emphasized, explaining that his decision was based on prudent financial planning. He also clarified that while he rented 26 Ridout Road, he was renting out his family home but was not profiting after factoring in property taxes and other expenses.
The fact that Mr Shanmugam transferred his home for S$88 million after expressing concerns about his financial situation raises questions about how much of his savings were truly tied up in the property, considering the substantial value of the transfer. However, it is important to note that the transfer occurred in August 2023, after his ministerial statement in July, meaning his remarks were accurate at the time.
Regarding the Ridout Road property, which Mr Shanmugam rented for S$26,500 per month, the land size increased from 9,350 square meters to 23,164 square meters—significantly larger than the 3,170.7 square meters of the Astrid Hill GCB that he transferred to UBS Trustees.
This expansion was a result of negotiations between Mr Shanmugam and SLA.
According to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau’s independent investigation, Mr Shanmugam initially offered to maintain the adjacent land at his own cost if SLA cleared the vegetation. However, he preferred to exclude the land from his tenancy, as including it would impose legal obligations on him, such as responsibility for mosquito breeding or other maintenance issues.
SLA, on the other hand, preferred to include the adjacent land within the property boundary to ensure that the tenant bore responsibility for its maintenance and legal obligations. SLA negotiated an agreement with Mr Shanmugam in which the adjacent land was included within the property boundary, and the tenant was made responsible for maintaining it. This arrangement was said to ensure that the legal responsibilities were clear, with the tenant assuming both the cost and the liability.
Given Mr Shanmugam’s role overseeing the SLA, concerns about a potential conflict of interest were raised. However, in a parliamentary statement delivered by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean in July 2023, it was clarified that Mr Shanmugam had recused himself from the decision-making process.
SM Teo stated:

“Minister Shanmugam had removed himself from the chain of command and decision-making process entirely… CPIB established that there was no matter raised by SLA to MinLaw [Ministry of Law] and hence, to any of the Ministers during the entire rental process.”

SM Teo also noted that the Chief Executive of SLA had declared in March 2018 to the then Permanent Secretary of MinLaw that the rental process for 26 Ridout Road was carried out properly and that the rental price was in line with market rates, as assessed by SLA valuers.
Mr Shamugam’s wife, Mrs Shanmugam, signed the Tenancy Agreement for 26 Ridout Road in June 2018, with a lease term of 3+3+3 years. After the first three-year term, the tenancy was renewed in 2021, with the rent maintained at S$26,500 per month, in line with market conditions as determined by SLA.
The Online Citizen has reached out to Mr Shanmugam for comments on the transfer of his property. As of the time of publication, no response has been received. Should further remarks be provided, this article will be updated accordingly.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Iswaran convicted of 5 charges, will be sentenced on Oct 3​

Former transport minister S. Iswaran leaving the Supreme Court alone on Sept 24. ST PHOTO: GAVIN FOO
Nadine Chua, Selina Lum, Wong Shiying and Christine Tan

Sep 25, 2024

SINGAPORE - On what was to be the first day of a highly anticipated trial in which he aimed to clear his name, former transport minister S. Iswaran was convicted on Sept 24 after he pleaded guilty to five of the 35 charges he faced.
Events took an unexpected turn after the prosecution agreed to amend two corruption charges to less serious charges of obtaining valuable items as a public servant.
Iswaran, 62, admitted to obtaining valuable items worth more than $400,000 in total from Formula One (F1) race promoter Singapore GP’s chairman Ong Beng Seng and Mr David Lum Kok Seng, managing director of mainboard-listed construction company Lum Chang Holdings.
He has paid back more than $380,000 to the state and will forfeit the items he received.
The prosecution, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong, pressed for six to seven months’ jail for Iswaran.
Mr Tai argued that as Iswaran was a minister for 12 years, his acts have had significant impact on the reputation of the Singapore Government, which is well known for its commitment to integrity.
He said that if public servants could accept substantial gifts in such a situation, public confidence in the integrity of government would be undermined.

“Not punishing such acts would send a signal that such acts are tolerated,” he said.
But Iswaran’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, argued that the former minister should serve no more than eight weeks in jail.
Mr Singh said there was nothing to suggest that his client’s loyalty and duties to the Government were compromised.

In response, Mr Tai contended that it was important for the court to set the “correct marker” on the punishment to be meted out.
Justice Vincent Hoong said he would take time to further consider the arguments, and that he would give his decision on the sentence on Oct 3.

Iswaran had pleaded guilty to four charges of obtaining valuable items as a public servant, an offence under Section 165 of the Penal Code. Another 30 charges will be taken into consideration for sentencing.
He is the first person to be convicted of the offence since Singapore’s independence.
Section 165 of the Penal Code makes it an offence for a public servant to accept or obtain anything of value, for free or for inadequate payment, from anyone with whom he is involved in an official capacity.
Iswaran also pleaded guilty to a fifth charge of obstructing the course of justice, for making payment of $5,700 for a business-class flight he had taken from Doha to Singapore in 2022 at Mr Ong’s expense.
Setting out how this trip came about, Mr Tai told the court that on Dec 6, 2022, Mr Ong had asked Iswaran if he would like to join him on a trip to Qatar.
Mr Ong told Iswaran he would be travelling on his private jet, and the former minister would be going as his guest. The billionaire hotelier added that he would take care of all of Iswaran’s expenses, including hotel accommodation.
Iswaran accepted the invitation and applied for urgent personal leave.

On Dec 10, 2022, he travelled to Doha on Mr Ong’s private jet. The value of the flight was more than $10,000, said the prosecutor.
Upon reaching Doha, Iswaran checked into Four Seasons Hotel Doha, and the value of one night at the hotel was over $4,000.
Iswaran then flew back to Singapore on a business-class flight that cost $5,700, which was paid for by Singapore GP on Mr Ong’s instructions.
In May 2023, while the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau was probing a separate matter relating to Mr Ong’s associates, investigators came across the flight manifest of the flight to Doha.
After learning that the flight manifest had been seized, Iswaran asked Mr Ong to bill him for the expenses related to the Doha trip. He issued a cheque for $5,700 to Singapore GP for the commercial flight.

The obstruction charge relates to the $5,700 Iswaran repaid to Singapore GP for the cost of his flight from Doha to Singapore that he took in 2022, at Mr Ong’s expense through the company. ST PHOTO: SHINTARO TAY
Iswaran also admitted obtaining premium tickets to the 2017 Singapore F1 Grand Prix, with a value of $42,265.
The court was told that Iswaran had told Singapore GP deputy chairman Colin Syn that he required 10 Green Room tickets for the Singapore F1 Grand Prix in 2017.
The Green Room is a hospitality suite that offers a premium experience to enjoy the race. Each ticket is worth over $4,000.
Iswaran then gave these tickets to his friends and family to attend the race without paying for the tickets.
Iswaran also obtained a Brompton T Line bicycle worth more than $7,900 from Mr Lum in 2022 as a present for his 60th birthday.
In November 2021, Iswaran asked Mr Lum to help him source whisky and red wine after sending him a screenshot of a bottle of Gordon & MacPhail Caol Ila whisky.
In January 2022, Mr Lum arranged for 14 bottles of alcohol to be delivered to Iswaran.
In relation to these Section 165 offences, Mr Tai said the facts showed that Iswaran was more than a passive acceptor of the gifts in question.

In mitigation, Iswaran’s lawyer, Mr Singh, said Iswaran has recognised that he was wrong to have accepted the items from Mr Ong and Mr Lum.
Mr Singh, who addressed the court for more than two hours, said the items were given in the context of his friendship with Mr Ong and Mr Lum.
But Mr Tai said that friendship is neither a defence nor a mitigating factor to the charges under Section 165.
“The closer the social relationship, the more important it is for public servants to avoid taking gifts,” he said.
Mr Singh also argued that there were no losses suffered by the gift givers.
Referring to Iswaran’s trip to Doha on Mr Ong’s private jet, Mr Singh said the chairman of the World Cup had invited Mr Ong to watch the quarter-finals in 2022, and Iswaran was invited on the trip.
Iswaran had considered the trip an opportunity to learn how a city like Doha staged and organised a world event, Mr Singh said.
Mr Ong had already made arrangements for the private jet, added Mr Singh, and the cost would have been incurred regardless of whether Iswaran was on board.
As for the F1 tickets, Mr Singh said they were not for sale to begin with, so there was no loss. He added that Iswaran distributed the tickets to others, so they could enjoy the race and promote it.
But Mr Tai also said the fact that the giver did not suffer a loss was not a mitigating factor.
“We reject any submissions that there was no harm or minimal harm. Any offence under this Section 165 damages the Government’s interest,” he said.

In mitigation, defence lawyer Davinder Singh is seeking not more than eight weeks’ jail for his client. ST ILLUSTRATION: MIEL
At one point, Mr Tai said that he wanted to clarify that the charges were amended, but Iswaran was not acquitted of corruption.
Mr Singh then objected, saying that he never suggested that there was an acquittal.
The two then got into an extended exchange, with Mr Singh raising his voice at certain points.
But Justice Hoong said it was “pointless” to go into an argument on why the charges were amended, which was not relevant for sentencing.
In a statement to the media, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said that in deciding whether to amend the charge, it considered the “litigation risks” involved in proving the corruption charges beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.
The statement said that given that there are two primary parties to the transactions, both parties would have an interest in denying corruption in the transactions.
The AGC added that it will take a decision in respect of Mr Ong soon.
After the hearing, Iswaran spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court building.
He said: “As you know, my lawyers have stated the position clearly, and as you’re well aware, the matter is now sub judice, so it’s not appropriate for me to say anything more.
“I just want to thank all of you for coming, and let’s see how it goes.”

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Unacceptable for public servants to accept valuable gifts, says Deputy A-G​

The two corruption charges that former transport minister S. Iswaran faced were amended by the prosecution on Sept 24 to charges under Section 165. ST PHOTO: NG SOR LUAN

Tham Yuen-C
Senior Political Correspondent

Sep 25, 2024

SINGAPORE – While there have been cases of politicians in other countries accepting valuable gifts, this is not acceptable in Singapore, and that is why the prosecution charged former minister S. Iswaran, said Deputy Attorney-General Tai Wei Shyong.
He was explaining why the public prosecutor brought charges under Section 165 of the Penal Code, which makes it an offence for public servants to accept or obtain valuable items from people who they have dealings with in their official capacity.
On what was to be the first day of the trial on Sept 24, the prosecution amended the two corruption charges that Iswaran faced to charges under Section 165.
The prosecution then proceeded with four charges under Section 165 and one charge under Section 204A(a) for obstruction of justice, with the remaining 30 charges against Iswaran taken into consideration.
Mr Tai said the objective of Section 165 was to “criminalise a public servant who, through obtaining or accepting gifts, makes questionable his loyalty to the Government” in respect of the business transactions linked to his official duties.
If public servants were allowed to accept substantial gifts over the long term, public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of government would be severely undermined, he added, in arguing for a sentence of six to seven months for Iswaran.
Bringing up the example of Britain, Mr Tai noted that there have been news reports of politicians there receiving gifts running into hundreds of thousands of pounds from donors.


British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, as leader of the Labour Party, had declared free tickets and gifts worth £100,000 (S$172,000), while former British prime minister Boris Johnson had received free holiday accommodation and also money to pay for the renovation of his apartment, for instance.
Mr Tai added that in highlighting these cases, he was not seeking to draw any comparisons with or parallels to what happened in other countries, nor was he suggesting that gift giving in other countries was wrong.
Rather, it was to stress that the receipt of such gifts was unacceptable in Singapore, he added.
“Our systems are different, and what we pay our public servants is also different,” he said, adding that this was part of the “system and equation” here.
Addressing this in his mitigation remarks, Iswaran’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, noted the prosecution’s point that it was not seeking to compare the current case with what has happened in other countries.
He said it is clear things in Singapore are different, and that people know what is acceptable and what is not.
“When the prosecution decided to prosecute the accused, that signal was sent loud and clear across the globe,” he added.
It is clear the Singapore Government operates with integrity, and nothing Iswaran did has undermined that, he said, adding that the case resulted in the Government restating its position on its integrity.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Iswaran gets 12 months’ jail; sentence nearly double what prosecution sought​

S. Iswaran leaving the Supreme Court at 11.34am after the sentencing on Oct 3. ST PHOTO: JASON QUAH
Nadine Chua, Wong Shiying and Andrew Wong

Oct 04, 2024

SINGAPORE – Former transport minister S. Iswaran was handed a 12-month jail term on Oct 3 in a landmark case that saw, for the first time, a former Cabinet minister being sentenced.
The punishment was almost double the six to seven months’ jail the prosecution had sought.
Iswaran had on Sept 24 pleaded guilty to five charges – four for obtaining valuable items as a public servant from Mr Ong Beng Seng, chairman of Formula One race promoter Singapore GP, and Mr David Lum, managing director of construction company Lum Chang Holdings.
The fifth charge was for obstructing the course of justice by making payment of $5,700 for a business-class flight he had taken from Doha to Singapore in 2022 at Mr Ong’s expense.
Meting out the sentence, Justice Vincent Hoong said what the prosecution and defence had asked for were “manifestly inadequate”. Iswaran’s lawyers had sought not more than eight weeks’ jail.
Gasps were heard in the courtroom when the judge said this. Iswaran’s wife, Ms Kay Mary Taylor, shook her head.
Justice Hoong emphasised that trust and confidence in public institutions are the bedrock of effective governance.

“This can all too easily be undermined by a public servant who falls below standards of integrity and accountability,” he said.
The higher the office held by the offender as a public servant, the higher his level of culpability, the judge added.
“Holders of high office ordinarily wield a greater degree of potential influence over significant business transactions or proceedings and have a larger resultant impact on the public interest,” he said.

Such individuals set the tone for public servants in conducting themselves to high standards of integrity, and they must avoid any perception that they are susceptible to influence by financial benefits, he added.
“Persons who accept appointments to high office take on the heavy responsibilities of their office along with the associated power and status, and should generally be regarded as having acted with greater culpability in abusing their position to obtain valuable gifts,” said Justice Hoong.
The judge also noted that an offender’s awareness that the giver was motivated by a desire to cultivate his goodwill and loyalty would be a relevant factor in sentencing.

As Justice Hoong addressed the court, Iswaran looked down and took notes.
Turning to the charges involving Mr Ong, the judge said Iswaran abused his position by obtaining gifts from Mr Ong despite knowing that the Singapore GP chairman had close connection to his official duties.
Mr Ong will be charged on Oct 4 with abetting a public servant in obtaining valuables and for obstructing the course of justice.
The judge noted that Iswaran’s culpability cannot be considered low, given his standing as a minister.
He said he was not persuaded by the defence’s argument that Mr Ong would have incurred the cost of the private jet flight regardless of whether Iswaran had accompanied him.

Property tycoon Ong Beng Seng, seen at the paddock at the F1 Pit Building in September, will be charged on Oct 4 in relation to Iswaran’s case. ST PHOTO: SHINTARO TAY
Iswaran acted with deliberation in requesting valuable items and taking urgent personal leave for the trip to Doha, allowing himself to enjoy the all-expenses-paid trip with only four days’ prior notice, said Justice Hoong.
“I am unable to accept that the absence of financial detriment to the giver is a mitigating factor. The giver’s voluntary provision of the valuable item is not a mitigating factor because it does not reduce the offender’s culpability or the resultant damage to public confidence in public institutions,” he said.
The judge added that it was significant that Iswaran had made public statements asserting his innocence.
In a letter in January to then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Iswaran rejected the charges and said he was innocent and believed he would be acquitted, said Justice Hoong.
“Thus, I have considerable difficulty accepting that these acts were indicative of the accused’s remorse and desire to make reparations,” he added.

The sentence was meted out in front of Iswaran’s family, and more than 40 members of the public in the gallery. ST ILLUSTRATION: MIEL
Iswaran’s trial was due to begin on Sept 24. When the hearing began, the prosecution decided not to proceed with the two corruption charges, and amended them to charges of obtaining valuable items as a public servant.
The former minister pleaded guilty to five charges, with another 30 charges taken into consideration during sentencing.
Justice Hoong said the charges taken into consideration revealed the scale, extent and repetition of Iswaran’s offending over a significant duration of time.
Iswaran, who admitted to obtaining valuable items worth more than $400,000 in total from Mr Ong and Mr Lum, has paid back more than $380,000 to the state and will forfeit the items he received.
“The harm done to the public interest, in the form of damage to trust and confidence in public institutions, is unlikely to be adequately remedied by these actions,” Justice Hoong said.

Iswaran’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, asked for his client’s sentence to commence on Oct 7.
The former minister is to surrender himself at 4pm on Oct 7 at the State Courts.
He exited the High Court at around 11.35am, almost an hour after the 40-minute court session.
He told the media he had no comments at this point and walked to a waiting car.

Criminal lawyer Choo Si Sen, a former deputy public prosecutor, said Iswaran has 14 days to appeal against his sentence.
If he lodges an appeal, his lawyers will likely apply for bail pending appeal. Iswaran would not have to turn up at the State Courts on Oct 7 if this bail is granted, said Mr Choo.
The veteran lawyer added that the court may impose different conditions on this bail.
“In most cases, the court will increase the bail amount by up to 50 per cent since the offender has been convicted and sentenced,” he said.
Analysts said Iswaran’s sentence sends a strong signal of Singapore’s stance – that there is no compromise when it comes to conduct and integrity.
They also noted that it is not unheard of for the courts to mete out harsher punishment than what the prosecution had sought, where deemed appropriate.
Singapore Management University’s Associate Professor Eugene Tan, who teaches law, said Iswaran’s sentence showed that the court “placed a premium on maintaining the integrity of the public sector”.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Ex-deputy director at PA fined $10k for giving false information about quotations​

Vincent Chang Yew Teck (left) hid behind his lawyer as he exited the State Courts after pleading guilty on Oct 14. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Christine Tan

Oct 14, 2024

SINGAPORE – A former deputy director of facilities management at the People’s Association (PA) for Our Tampines Hub was fined $10,000 for lying about quotation documents.
On Oct 14, Vincent Chang Yew Teck, 64, pleaded guilty to two counts of giving false information to a public servant. Two other similar charges were taken into consideration for sentencing.
Chang’s subordinate, Lee Kian Wee, 51, a senior facilities manager of contracts at PA, is also involved in the case.
Another accomplice is Soh Chun Kang, 42, a senior key account manager at UEMS Solutions. The company helps PA manage term contractors for Our Tampines Hub.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Michelle Tay told the court that PA’s term contractor for minor building works at Our Tampines Hub was a firm named Propell Integrated.
The contract between PA and Propell Integrated contains the prices for a ist of building works, while other works not in the list are called “star rate” works.
When works within the list were required, Propell Integrated had to submit its own quotation to UEMS.

When “star rate” work was required, Propell Integrated had to submit one quotation from itself, with two supporting quotations from other sub-contractors, to UEMS.
For both types of works, UEMS had to prepare a series of forms requesting and recording quotations, and submit its recommendations to PA.
But in truth, these forms were never prepared. PA and UEMS had instructed the contractor to start work first without going through the proper quotation processes.

Describing how they cut corners for “star rate” works, DPP Tay said: “It was only after Propell had completed the work that (it) belatedly submitted the three quotations to PA and UEMS, for PA to issue a purchase order and to approve the necessary payment to Propell.”
The Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) conducted an audit of the building works at Our Tampines Hub between July 2020 and March 2021.
It sampled 36 purchase orders for building works carried out between November 2017 to January 2020. AGO requested for PA to provide the quotation forms related to the sampled purchase orders.

On Jan 28, 2021, Chang, Lee, Soh and one Ms Angela Teo, a senior manager at UEMS, held a meeting.
Knowing the quotation documents did not exist, Chang and Lee told Soh and Teo to create backdated documents to submit to AGO.
During the audit, AGO detected that false information was submitted. Court documents did not elaborate how the AGO did so.
A total of 142 backdated documents were submitted to the AGO, according to a police statement about the case on Jan 31.
However, DPP Tay noted that there was no evidence of monetary loss caused to PA, and the works were satisfactorily completed.
She added that Chang, Lee and Soh also did not receive financial benefits from the offences.
DPP Tay said Lee and Soh had already pleaded guilty in July and were fined $8,000 each. It was not revealed in court if Ms Teo was taken to task.
The prosecutor argued for a higher fine for Chang, as he had the highest position of authority among the trio.
Chang’s lawyer, Mr Rohit Singh of Regal Law, said his client was “extremely remorseful” for what happened.
PA told The Straits Times on Jan 31 that Chang and Lee are no longer its employees.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

High standards of conduct expected of all public servants: Chan Chun Sing on Section 165​

In Singapore, it is not acceptable for a public servant to accept or obtain gifts from a person whom they have official dealings with. ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG

Goh Yan Han
Political Correspondent

Oct 14, 2024

SINGAPORE – High standards of conduct are expected of all public servants, said Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing on Oct 14.
In Singapore, it is not acceptable for a public servant to accept or obtain gifts from a person whom he or she has official dealings with.
Otherwise, public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Government would be undermined, Mr Chan added.
“This is also the ethos Singaporeans would expect of leaders in all organisations, whether private or public,” said Mr Chan, who is also Education Minister.
He was responding in Parliament, on behalf of Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, to questions raised by several MPs on the application of Section 165 of the Penal Code and its impact on the wider public service.
Earlier in October, former transport minister S. Iswaran was sentenced to 12 months’ jail after pleading guilty to five charges, including four under Section 165 for obtaining valuable items as a public servant.

Workers’ Party MP Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) asked whether the definition of a public servant under the Penal Code was fit for purpose for an offence under Section 165, and if Singapore’s anti-corruption laws should be reviewed for greater efficacy.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang GRC) and Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang) asked if Section 165 may deter individuals and top talent from the private sector from joining or contributing to the public service.
In response, Mr Chan said the rules would not deter good people from joining or contributing to the public service.
“On the contrary, if we do not have an ethos or system that ensures clean, honest government, we would not be able to attract the right people from the private sector to join us,” he added.

The definition of public servants generally includes public officers under the employment of the public service and various individuals executing public duties on behalf of the Government.
On whether the anti-corruption laws should be reviewed, Mr Chan said there should not be a knee-jerk reaction to immediately tighten or add more rules when individuals fall short.
If the rules were clear, but flouted or ignored, what should be done is to take decisive action against the offender instead of adjusting the rules.
If the rules were unclear, they should be clarified or simplified, he said.
The rules should be updated if they were too lax or do not cover a new situation, added Mr Chan.
“The recent developments show that we do not shy away from doing the right thing to uphold the trust that Singaporeans have in the Government, and this is what we will continue to do,” he said.

Ms Lim noted that after Iswaran’s sentencing, PM Wong issued a statement on the need to act against corruption.
“Noting that the former minister was not actually convicted of corruption, is the Prime Minister actually saying that, regardless of the charges that were preferred and… convicted on, that he thinks that the former minister acted corruptly?” she asked.
Iswaran was in January charged with two counts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, but these were amended at the start of his trial in September to less serious charges under Section 165.
Responding to Ms Lim, Mr Chan said Section 165 was a corruption charge. The difference between the two was that under Section 165, there was no need to prove quid pro quo on both sides, but only to prove that a person had taken the item.
“It doesn’t mean that it’s not a corruption charge,” he said.
Ms Lim also noted that she had raised the review of anti-corruption laws as the Attorney-General’s Chambers, when asked about the amended charges, had said there were litigation risks involved in proceeding with the Prevention of Corruption Act.
She questioned if this would be a reason for the Government to review the Act.
Mr Chan said that as of now, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau and enforcement agencies find that the Act’s current framing allows them to do their job.
He added that if new developments arise that warrant a review of the Act, the Government is open to doing so.